Luther: Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Reason":

Christ taught: “ Be therefore, wise as serpents and simple as doves”[Matt 10:16], “You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?” [Matt 16:3]. Luther teaches: “No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor . . . Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith” [Trischreden, Weimer VI, 143, 25-35]. (Underling in the original)

According to this quote, Christ exhorts his hearers to "be wise" [Matt. 10:16]. Matthew 16:13 appears to have Christ saying one can know the signs of the times, but this passage is being used grossly out of context. It is a passage in which Jesus is chastising the Pharisees and Sadducees over their ignorance. By contrast, Luther is quoted as saying good works are the result of stupor, and reason (or wisdom) is the enemy of faith. The caricature being set up is Christ commands people to be wise, while Luther puts forth the bliss of ignorance.

Documentation
It's possible that this Luther quote was plagiarized from this secondary source: Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985. Note the similarities:

Luther, Exposing the Myth says the quote comes from "Trischreden, Weimer VI, 143, 25-35." There is no such thing as "Trischreden," it's Tischreden. The Tischreden is Luther's Table Talk, a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends, published after his death. There is no such thing as "Weimer," it's Weimar. This is the German collection of Luther's works.  Despite these haphazard spelling errors, if Luther, Exposing the Myth is referring WA TR,  volume VI does contain the Table Talk, WA TR 6:143, lines 25-35 can be found here:

Despite this reference, Luther, Exposing the Myth is actually citing two different statements from Luther. The first sentence, "No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor" is not on page 143 of WA TR 6:143. It appears to come from WA TR 1:175, lines 21-22,

This 1532 Table Talk statement has been translated into in English in LW 54:64.  The next sentence, "Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith”" does correspond to statement from WA TR 6:143, lines 25-35 (lines 25-26). To my knowledge, this complete Table Talk statement has not been fully translated into English. Below an English translation has been provided by Thoughts By Brigitte.


Context: Quote #1

The title of this Table Talk says it all: Youth, Not Age, Is Venturesome. The point is that young people are impulsive and prone to get them in to things that older people might not.

No. 406: Youth, Not Age, Is Venturesome December, 1532
“No good work is undertaken or done with wise reflection. It must all happen in a half-sleep. This is how I was forced to take up the office of teaching. If I had known what I know now, ten horses wouldn’t have driven me to it. Moses and Jeremiah also complained that they were deceived. Nor would any man take a wife if he first gave real thought [to what might happen in marriage and the household]. Here Philip said that he had diligently observed that in history great deeds had never been done by old men. “This was so,” said Luther, “when Alexander and Augustus were young; afterward men become too wise. They didn’t do great things by deliberate choice but by a sort of impulse. If you young fellows were wise, the devil couldn’t do anything to you; but since you aren’t wise, you need us who are old. Our Lord God doesn’t do great things except by violence, as they say. If old men were strong and young men were wise it would be worth something. The sect leaders are all young men like Icarus and Phaeton. Such are Zwingli and Karlstadt.  They are novices in the sacred Scriptures” [LW 54:64].

Context: Quote #2

Therefore leave reason at home, because it is the archenemy of faith, if you are fighting sin and death, so that you do not lose the righteousness of Christ or faith (because it [reason] does not know what that is [righteousness of Christ/faith]), but it is always relying on its own righteousness, or when it is doing its best, on the righteousness of the law.

But whenever reason and the law come together (unite) faith then has immediately lost its virginity and purity. For there is no thing which opposes faith more than the law and reason, and you cannot battle them down unless with great effort and work; and yet, it has to be done; they must be conquered, if you want to be saved.

Conclusion
The reason why Luther saw "reason" as an enemy of the faith is because it deems the things of God to be absurd nonsense. In a traditional concept of faith, faith is put into something that we can empirically or rationally verify. Luther held that by looking at the God of the Bible, one comes to know a “weak and foolish God,” since this God is not known by wisdom and signs (or by a process we can control). The God of the Bible reveals himself in what “reason” would think is foolishness: God is found in a crib, and on a cross.

Luther though, must not be seen as rejecting human reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning, but reason was always to play the role of a servant. Hence, when one reads strong statements by Luther against reason, one must keep in mind that Luther valued reason, but it must be the handmaid to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther didn’t understand the use of “reason,” it is simply the fact that “reason” must be kept in its place in theological matters.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Contra Liccione on the Canon Question

A commenter at CatholicNick's place decided to copy+paste a comment from Dr. Michael Liccione and originally posted at Called to Communion on the question of the canon of Scripture.  The copy+paste begins here.  I offered my critique of the article, which I am going to cut into the comment's text here.


I should think the burden would be on RCC to give some reason to believe that it is in fact infallible.
But first, to prove that it is the only One True Church®.


the teaching that the Tridentine canon is divinely inspired is one that we accept as irreformable

1) This is an ignorant thing to say, since the Tridentine canon passed over at least one book in silence. So your canon of Scr is not closed or complete.
2) Further, for a Sola Scripturist, the canon of Scr is identical to the list of infallible teachings, since only Scr is infallible.
What is Rome's infallible canon of infallible teachings? If you can't provide it, what is Rome's fallible canon of infallible teachings?



You can’t even tell us which visible body counts as “the” Church whose allegedly fallible authority you nonetheless want to cite.

So he just got finished telling us that SS-ists don't think that the church is infallible, that we think the canon is made by a fallible church. And then he rubs it in our faces that we can't claim an infallible church? Um, isn't that what we were saying the whole time?


For if whatever-it-is you call “the Church” could always be wrong

But we don't depend on the church. We depend on and trust in God to make His revelation known. We're theists.


how do you make your case?

My case is found here.


The formation of the canon is the work of God working through the Church.

Prove it by bringing fwd:
1) your infallible canon of infallible teachings;
OR, FAILING THAT
2) your fallible canon of infallible teachings;
OR, FAILING THAT
3) your infallible canon of Scr.

....

which church is “the Church,”

Great question. If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there's lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC, the Watchtower, the LDS, David Koresh, José Luís de Jesús Miranda, etc. If your response resembles: "Just check which church has the pedigree and the line of apostolic succession," then
1) EOC claims the same thing. How can I know who's right?
2) Is it just your non-authoritative interp that apostolic succession/pedigree are the hallmarks of The One True Church®?
3) If I were in fact to check apostolic succession, wouldn't that be non-authoritative interp on my part? If you proceed to tell me to give up on that personal interp stuff, isn't that begging the entire question?
4) If JW/LDS, for example, is the infallible interpreter, wouldn't their interpretation of church history (including a Great Apostasy and later Restoration) be correct by definition, since it's infallible?



without identifying some church as “the Church” that does the pertinent “work of God,”

But we DO identify it. It is the Church.
But "the Church" here is not "the RCC", b/c the church to which I refer is not identical with the modern RCC. But we're not reliant on the church, we're reliant on God Himself to make His revelation known.



What you give us thereby is only your opinion and that of your particular branch of Protestantism, which does not claim infallibility.

1) False dilemma - it is not true that there is either infallibility or "just your opinion". In between is an educated, argued-for position.
2) The individual RC cannot claim infallibility for himself, so this argument cuts his own position's throat. Simply citing another infallible source doesn't get you anywhere either - SS-ists do that when we cite God as infallible source.
So try as you might, I'm very sorry, but you have no epistemological advantage here in this question.



a fallible church that you can’t even identify with a visible body cannot count as such an authority.

Strawman. We DO identify a visible body - the Church. Doesn't mean it's infallible.

See, we trust our omnipotent, loving God to make His self-revelation known to His people. There is little reason to think this would require that His people be infallible. Indeed, did He not successfully make His Word known to the Old Testament people of God? And what was their infallible interpreter? The Sanhedrin which put Jesus to death? The Sadducees who denied the resurrection in the Eschaton?

We further know it through the impossibility of the contrary. If God has not spoken clearly, sufficiently, and in a way understandable to people, then let us eat, drink, and be merry, for neither today nor tomorrow do we know anything about God, eternal life, atonement, sin, judgment, resurrection, or moral law. Indeed, I'd argue we have no basis for ANY objective epistemology or metaphysics. Such an idea is certainly unlivable, and if one is inclined to argue that its unthinkability is a crutch for weak-minded people, I simply respond that if God did not speak, there's nothing right OR WRONG with being weak-minded.

Luther, Exposing the Myth: Plagiarized?

The wonders of the Internet never cease. I actually found the document from which the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to have been partially plagiarized from: Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985. It appears that a Roman Catholic website plagiarized a Roman Catholic Newsletter.

Luther: God Moved the Will of Judas?

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading of "Free Will":

“His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world” [De servo Arbitrio, against man’s free will].
Elsewhere I've documented that Luther, Exposing the Myth juxtaposes these type of Luther quotes against a Pelagian misinterpretation of Scripture. Luther Exposing the Myth completely ignores Luther's argumentation about necessity and the will. Rather, they set up a Pelagian paradigm which is quite reminiscent of that put forth by Erasmus. Both Luther Exposing the Myth and Erasmus either minimize or ignore grace. With this quote, Luther's position is caricatured to prove God is the author of Judas' sin.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth simply points readers to the Latin version of the Bondage of the Will, "De Servo Arbitrio." This is a telling indication that the quote comes from a secondary source. The author of Luther Exposing the Myth probably didn't read this quote in context. I've found a secondary source that lays out the quote in a similar fashion. In Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's Luther His Life and Work, page 304, it states,

The assertion of God's relation to sin was equally unintelligible to many readers of Luther's treatise. If man lacks free-will, who is it that causes sin? Luther feels that it will not do to hold God directly responsible for sin. He does not assert that there is an immediate impulse to evil originating with God. But, quite consistent with his system, he speaks of the treachery of Judas thus: "His [Judas'] will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world."

Grisar documents this quote by referring to his own book, Luther vol. II, p. 282:

In the case of the betrayal of Judas, as Scheel points out, Luther does not mention any necessity "which compelled Judas to act as he did"; Luther seems, at least in certain passages, to look on that act as necessary, only because, having been foreseen by God, it "inevitably occurs at the time appointed." Yet elsewhere he says: "His will [that of the traitor] was the work of God; God by His Almighty Power moved his will as He does all that is in the world." (3)

(3)"Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si praescivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor,nec erat in manu Judae aut ullius creaturae, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia." "Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 715 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 7, p. 263.

Grisar cites "Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 715 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 7, p. 263. Contrary to the documentation of Luther, Exposing the Myth, Both of these are valid primary references. In the later Grisar quote we find his typical interpretation of Luther. Grisar actually gets it right by noting Luther did not charge God directly responsible for the sin of Judas and that the passages in question presents Luther arguing for the betrayal of Judas "having been foreseen by God" therefore "inevitably occurs at the time appointed time." But in typical Grisar fashion, the Luther quote in question is used to show Luther contradicted himself by stating Luther "elsewhere says..."

By using Grisar's references to the WA edition, the quote can be cross-referenced in the English versions of the Bondage of the Will. The quote appears on page 213 of the Packer / Johnston translation and on page 185 of LW 33.


Context

Packer / Johnston translation

The fancy about necessity of consequence and of the thing consequent was refuted earlier. Let the Diatribe invent and go on inventing, let it quibble and quibble again—if God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas became a traitor of necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or of any creature to act differently, or to change his will, from that which God had foreseen. It is true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, like everything else. It is a principle of clear, unassailable truth that God does not lie or make mistakes. There are no obscure or ambiguous words here, even though all the most learned men of all ages should be so blind as to think and affirm the contrary. However much you may boggle, yet your conscience, and everybody's conscience, is convinced, and bound to confess, that, if God is not mistaken in what He foreknows, then what He foreknows must necessarily come to pass. Otherwise, who could believe His promises, and who would fear His threatenings, if what He promised or threatened did not necessarily ensue? How can He promise or threaten, if His foreknowledge deceives Him, or can be obstructed by our instability? The supremely clear light of certain truth stops all mouths, ends all questions and gives victory over all the subtleties of evasion.

LW 33

But these are all signs of a mind under conviction and rashly struggling against invincible truth. That figment about the necessity of consequence and of the consequent has been refuted above. Diatribe may pretend and pretend again, quibble and quibble again, as much as she likes, but if God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas necessarily became a traitor, and it was not in the power of Judas or any creature to do differently or to change his will, though he did what he did willingly and not under compulsion, but that act of will was a work of God, which he set in motion by his omnipotence, like everything else. For it is an irrefutable and self-evident proposition that God does not lie and is not deceived. There are no obscure or ambiguous words here, even if all the most learned men of all the centuries are so blind as to think and speak otherwise. And however much you boggle at it, your own and everyone else’s conscience is convinced and compelled to say that if God is not deceived in what he foreknows, then the thing foreknown must of necessity take place; otherwise, who could believe his promises, who would fear his threats, if what he promises or threatens does not follow necessarily? Or how can he promise or threaten if his foreknowledge is fallible or can be hindered by our mutability? Clearly this very great light of certain truth stops everyone’s mouth, puts an end to all questions, ensures the victory over all evasive subtleties.

Conclusion
According to Luther, if God foreknows something, that "something" will come to pass. The quote itself appears in a context in which Luther makes this point both before and after it occurs. When Luther states the will of Judas was brought into being like everything else, he's simply stating a truth that all that is, ultimately is so because God brought human reality into being. The question as to the origin of sin (how Satan and man fell into sin) is, as Roman Catholic scholar Harry McSorley points out, "bypassed" (Luther: Right or Wrong?, p. 342). For Luther, the sin of Judas is the responsibility of Judas.

In The Bondage of the Will, Luther goes into greater detail about Judas a few pages later. Note his emphasis on the appeal to necessity of time in regard to the betrayal of Judas:

Two Kinds of Necessity: The Case of Judas
But now how beautifully [Erasmus] preserves freedom together with necessity when she says: “Not all necessity excludes free will, since God the Father necessarily begets the Son, and yet begets him freely and willingly, for he is not forced to do so.” I ask you, are we now disputing about coercion and force? Have we not plainly stated in so many of our books that we are speaking of the necessity of mutability? We know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ by an act of will; but we say this willing was certainly and infallibly going to occur in Judas himself if God foreknew it. Or if what I am saying is still not understood, let us have two sorts of necessity, one of force with reference to the work, the other of infallibility with reference to the time; and let anyone who listens to us understand that we are speaking of the latter, not of the former; that is to say, we are not discussing whether Judas became a traitor involuntarily or voluntarily, but whether at a time preordained by God it was bound infallibly to happen that Judas by an act of his will should betray Christ.

But see what Diatribe says here: “If you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, and his immutable will, Judas was necessarily going to turn traitor, and yet Judas could change his mind.” Do you really understand what you are saying, my dear Diatribe? Leaving aside the fact that the will can only will evil, as was proved above, how could Judas change his mind so long as the infallible foreknowledge of God remained? Could he change God’s foreknowledge and make it fallible? Here Diatribe gives up; she deserts the standard, throws away her arms, and quits the field, making out that the discussion has to do with Scholastic subtleties about the necessity of consequence and consequent, and she has no desire to pursue such quibbles[LW 33: 192-193].

What does it matter to me if free choice is not compelled, but does what it does willingly? It is enough for me that you grant that it must necessarily do what it does willingly, and that it cannot do anything else, if God has foreknown it. If God foreknows that Judas will turn traitor, or that he will change his will to betray, whichever God has foreknown will necessarily come about, or else God will be mistaken in his foreknowing and predicting, which is impossible. For this is the result of the necessity of consequence, i.e., if God foreknows a thing, that thing necessarily happens. That is to say, there is no such thing as free choice. This necessity of consequence is not obscure or ambiguous, and even if the doctors of all the centuries were blind, they would be forced to admit it, since it is so manifest and certain as to be palpable. But the necessity of the consequent, with which they console themselves, is a mere phantom and diametrically opposed to the necessity of consequence. For example, there is a necessity of consequence if I say: God foreknows that Judas will be a traitor, therefore it will certainly and infallibly come about that Judas will be a traitor. In face of this necessity and consequence, this is how you console yourself: But because Judas can change his will to betray, there is therefore no necessity of the consequent. How, I ask you, do these two statements harmonize: “Judas can will not to betray” and “It is necessary that Judas should will to betray”? Do they not directly contradict and oppose one another? He will not, you say, be compelled to betray against his will. What has that to do with it? You have been speaking about the necessity of the consequent, and saying that it is not implied by the necessity of consequence, but you have said nothing about the compulsion of the consequent. The question you were supposed to answer was about the necessity of the consequent, and you give an example about the compulsion of the consequent; I ask for one thing, you give me another. This comes of your being only half awake and not noticing how completely useless that device of the necessity of the consequent is [LW 194-195].

Luther's view of necessity is quite complex. Luther clearly says Judas did not betray Christ in the sense of necessity of force or violence. Rather, he appeals to a necessity of time, that if God knows something is going to happen, it will indeed happen. This type of distinction isn't even at odds with Romanism. For instance, Roman Catholic scholar Harry McSorley's in-depth treatment of De Servo Arbitrio, Luther Right or Wrong? argues as much. This isn't to suggest Luther's view as expressed in the Bondage of the Will is entirely in harmony with Roman Catholicism. Even McSorley points out it is not. However, with this particular quote, Luther Exposing the Myth is using a quote out of context, that when placed back in context, doesn't necessarily contradict Roman Catholicsm. True, Luther's view of providence and the hidden God is distasteful to many (including many Lutherans), but in this instance, the quote being used is part of an argument simply asserting that if God knows something is going to happen, it will.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Roman Catholic Delusions - 2

lozeerose has responded here to my earlier post and the post is quite long. That's the way it goes sometimes, so let's see what comes of it.
First, let's recall that lozeerose told us earlier:

if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation valid and mine not?

Don't forget that this is a conversation-killer. Once we start talking about "well, that's just your interpretation!", there is nothing else to say, from either side. Either you admit that God is capable of revealing Himself in such a way as to be comprehensible to people or you don't. Either you admit that people can speak in such a way as to be comprehensible to others or you don't. Unfortunately this doesn't cover the issue of human diversity and sin. It is not necessarily the author's fault when a reader distorts, misunderstands, neglects parts of, ignores parts of, is ignorant of other parts of, or twists his text. Much less God's fault.

Also, I deny the premise - neither of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit. And only one of us is illumined by the Holy Spirit, and it ain't him.

Finally, let us remember that part of lozeerose's thesis can be pushed right back on him. If there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Magisterial declarations? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation of Magisterial declarations valid and mine not?
Does he answer the question? Let's take a look.

(Sidenote - this discussion originally branched off of a discussion on the topic of the permissibility of divorce, so I'll be skipping over those parts. For a biblically-sound and actually quite enlightening discussion of the biblical teaching on divorce, listen to John MacArthur's sermon series on the topic as he weaves it together with church discipline. RCs would do well, also, to listen to it so they could learn what the words "church discipline" mean.)

If you were to examine these verses, removing your own prejudices (difficult for any person) and place them in context you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings.

1) I have examined them many times.
2) They do not, when EXEgeted, lead the unbiased reader to place his entire faith and spiritual heritage in a church to be founded sometime in the authors' future, in a city thousands of miles away, under a man who usurps the Holy Spirit's rightful title of "Vicar of Christ", who contrary to all biblical indications is the sole exception to the biblical "only God is infallible" rule, who tells us to worship dead people, and who adds works (which we can't perform) and legalistic extra dogmas (like the Assumption of Mary) to the Gospel. If you want to EISEgete that stuff in there, of course, nobody can stop you, but let's not act like it's derived from the text.
3) Notice the voice of fideistic devotion to Rome. Rome is automatically and by default above examination and judgment by the Scripture, b/c lozeerose assumes that Rome's teaching cannot contradict Scr.

After all, the Bible is a Catholic book.

I don't even know what this means. Does he mean it was written by the Roman Church? That would be indefensible. Does he mean little-c "catholic", but his finger reflexively held down the Shift key? Does he genuinely not know the diff between little-c "catholic" and big-C "Catholic"? Or does he simply not care?
And since he told us earlier that he intended "to approach you both on your Sola Scriptura level", does he think that making such crucial distinctions is unimportant?

you and Vox make the assumption that the Church teaches that individuals cannot interpret Scripture on their own.

Actually, that's what lozeerose just finished telling us himself. And what CatholicNick was telling us before that.

What it prohibits is the acceptance of interpretations that are contrary to Church teaching.

Which means precisely what we said.
And, as noted above, is the statement of an unthinking drone, who refuses to put the Scripture above his church.

Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament (John 6 for one)

1) Note how he inconsistently presumes us to be able to interp John 6 properly.
2) Even though John 6 has very little to do with the Eucharist.
3) And even though the Roman Eucharist is actually heretical by both our standards.

I cite these passages because they themselves are cited in the Catechism

1) So now an individual can understand the CCC, eh? But moreso than the Bible, apparently.
2) Does he ever stop to ask himself whether the CCC is in fact correct to cite them?

If, by reading Scripture, your interpretation lends to a contradictory understanding then you are definitively wrong concerning this truth and must reconsider in order to truly call yourself a Christian (see the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39).

It is difficult to know what the Acts 8 psg is supposed to tell us.
1) Philip was not an apostle, and so is not part of the supposed "apostolic succession" of the Magisterium.
2) And he was an individual anyway. When we cite individual early church writers that disagree with modern Roman dogma, what do we hear? "He was just speaking as a private theologian" or some other line of turtle droppings. I guess I missed where "infallible ex cathedra" indicators appear in the Acts 8 psg. Maybe lozeerose can point it out to us. In fact, just look at further down his post - I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
3) Sola Scriptura is not: A claim that the Bible contains all knowledge; A denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth; A denial that other Christians can help those less knowledgeable to understand the Scr; A denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
4) The eunuch didn't tell Philip that he had no idea what the psg said. He asked for clarification on ONE THING.
5) And that was very plausibly b/c he didn't know the story of Jesus' earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Philip did know it. We in modern times hardly have that excuse.

If I include Church docs it is to provide you with Church teachings in her own words.

Which he expects me to understand. Else he wouldn't cite them. This is treading awfully close to disingenuousness.

This is why it is important to read Church documents so that you and/or I can scrutinize her teachings against Sacred Scripture

That's rich. Didn't he just finish telling us that "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?

You cannot have Church docs without Scripture.

Sure you can. Church docs on the Assumption of Mary, Mary as Co-Redemptrix... in fact, virtually the entire edifice of Mariolatry is built on an entirely different foundation than Scripture, simply b/c Scr knows nothing of the Marian dogmas.

Remember that the Bible is not the end-all, be-all of the Word of God.

Perhaps lozeerose could make a positive case for why he thinks the Word of God is also found elsewhere. And how that fits in with Mark 7:1-13. And why the Apostle Paul never directed us to this other Word of God, but only to Scr.

2Thess 2:15

Does lozeerose prove that the word of mouth is different in content than the letter mentioned? That the tradition mentioned there is distinct from the Scripture?

Rhology: If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there's lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC
lozeerose: You must look at history.

1) How would that help? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that history does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
2) Which is how all of these bodies I mentioned operate. Bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status. Or part of the "Great Apostasy" or something. And it all makes sense - if the modern body is infallible, then history, just like Scripture, says what the modern infallible body says it means. No means of correction is possible.

Remember I mentioned above that I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
That's why it's intellectually dishonest for someone in lozeerose's position to tell me to verify RCC's claims against history.

the first ecumenical council was the Council of Jerusalem where Matthias was elected to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:20, 25-26)

1) Where does the Scr refer to the Acts 1 meeting as a "council"?
2) Why do other RCs refer to the "Council of Jerusalem" as that which occurrs in Acts 15? After all, if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if lozeerose is inspired by the Holy Spirit and other RCs as well, then how is his interpretation valid and others' not?
3) Matthias wasn't elected at all.
Acts 1:23So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
4) Uh oh - we have a problem.  lozeerose has just told us that Matthias was elected.  No doubt other RCs, who actually take the time to read the passage, would tell us that Matthias was, for example, chosen by lot.  lozeerose disagrees with other RCs.
5) We have another problem. 
From here:  He (Peter) headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26)
From here: After Judas’s death the eleven apostles convened; the Holy Spirit chose Matthias to take Judas’s place
From here:  The one exception to this was Matthias, who replaced Judas. He was confirmed in office by God (Acts 1:24-26), and, though he did not receive his commission from Christ in person, he was a witness to Christ's ministry (1:15-23).
From here: Matthias was chosen as apostle by the other apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. This choice was, according to the Acts of the Apostles, made directly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once elected, he was treated exactly as one of the original Twelve.

The problem is twofold:
a. 3 of the 4 articles cited here get it wrong.  Where does the Acts psg give any indication that Matthias was "elected"?  Will lozeerose dare to tell us that when Acts says "the lot fell to Matthias", since The Church has apparently spoken, it actually means "Matthias was elected"?  It's not as if the psg is unclear, and it inspires that much less confidence in RCs' exegetical abilities that they mix up something this simple.
b. These RC documents don't agree with each other on this question.  And, again, it's not as if the Acts psg is unclear.  Further, it will not solve lozeerose's problem to appeal to "they're just private theologians" here, since he has repeatedly claimed unity in the RCC, and that multiplicity of conflicting interps = disunity, which he decries.  Judging by his own standards in this very simple exegetical question, RCC shoots a big fat fail.

Not sure what your getting at here, but again, the Church does not prohibit personal interp, just warns us that personal interp can lead to error and as such if your interp is contradicts the Church then you can rest assure your interp is wrong.

Throughout this whole post, lozeerose shows no recognition of the obvious fact that you still have to engage in personal interp to understand Magisterial declarations. So, if we apply his ultra-skeptical (when convenient for him and for Rome) epistemological position consistently, it's all a matter of "if your interp of Scr contradicts your interp of what RCC says". How does that get him or anyone anywhere? The guy whose interp of Magisterial docs differs from mine could simply say "Nuh uh, the Church said this"...

Both the JW and LDS, and even yourself, presuppose many things concerning Scripture and even the Church.

And the RC doesn't? More disingenuous special pleading.

infallibility is not something the Church invented; it is a characteristic that was conveyed on her by Jesus via the Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:16,18; 28:20, Luke 10:16, John 14:26; 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 John 2:27, Acts 6:10; 15:28).

What good do all these citations do anyone? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
Since in his mind Scr cannot contradict RC dogma, it is a given, unable to be examined and parsed, that these psgs support RC dogma. You do not have the right to interp these psgs in a way that dissents from RC teaching.

That is why these two sects must go outside of Scripture to claim a type of infallibility (they do not proclaim is like the Catholic Church does, as far as I know) and why Protestant churches don’t even attempt it.

Actually, their methods of claiming infallibility seem to be exactly the same as RCC's. Trumpet their infallibility, then when challenged on an indefensible point, retreat to special pleading.
An LDS example - The Bible says God "knows of no other god". LDS response - "the infallible Prophet tells us that it doesn't mean that"; or alternatively "this was not translated correctly".
A JW example - The WatchTower claimed the world would end in 1914. When it didn't, it just hoped people would ignore the failed prophecy and hastily redefined what they really meant back then, but the world would end in the 70s, etc. If challenged on that, just retreat to "your church is apostate".
A RC example - claim "the ancient and constant faith of the universal church" affirms a doctrine like Vatican I did of papal infallibility. Then when an ancient dissenting voice is brought fwd to demonstrate this statement is ludicrous, retreat to "he was just speaking as a private theologian"; or alternatively "I can show you dozens of pages of (out of context) church fathers affirming the doctrine", as if "constant" and "universal" allow for exceptions.

You are spot on except that I do not wrestle with the interplay of unity vis-a-vis disunity that is obviously expected and anticipated in the passages you cite especially the Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-26.

That's already been dealt with and dismissed.

The Catholic Church, as an institution, does not exhibit doctrinal disunity

1) Uh oh.
2) Uh oh again.
3) See above for the slipup with respect to Matthias.
4) Is lozeerose really unaware of the rampant liberalism at work within official RC circles?  And by official, I mean "not mostly-anonymous RC laymen bloggers, but actual priests and Vatican staff and theologians".
5) And there is a multitude of issues on which RCs do not agree.

• Darwinian evolution vs not-Darwinian evolution
• Papal infallibility
• Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
• Whether the Pope is subject to Ecumenical Councils
• What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian
• Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
• Mass in Latin or in vernacular
• Whether Trent closed the canon or not

etc.
IOW, that claim is empty.

Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, has stood for over 2,000 years without compromising her doctrines.

As I said above, bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status.

Did Judas’ betrayal disprove the divinity of Jesus? No.

That's a funny thing to say.
So, does Lutherans' getting the doctrine of the Eucharist wrong disprove the true biblical doctrine of the Eucharist? I guess, if lozeerose were to be consistent, he'd say no.
Do some Baptists' getting all hot and bothered about teetotalling disprove the true biblical doctrine of the permissibility of imbibing adult beverages (but not getting drunk)? Apparently not.
This concession destroys any argument lozeerose was trying to make about the preferability of RC unity over Protestant chaos.

Rhology: What's more, you're instating an over-realised eschatology. There's a reason why this is not Heaven.
lozeerose: You are aware that eschatology is the study of “last things” right?

Yep, I sure am. The point is that expecting perfect unity on this Earth, before the Eschaton, is chasing the end of the rainbow. "Perfect unity" is the crock o' gold. And since it's a fantasy, most of lozeerose's argument is consigned to the fantastic as well.

How else do you interpret Scripture if not through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

His exegesis of 2 Peter 1:20 is surprisingly, but typically, bad. Interpretation of a prophecy received by an individual church member, is not in view here; rather the emphasis is on the means of God's inspiring the text. Peter says that the prophetic word is yet more certain than his own eyewitness experiences, and goes on to tell us that "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God".

So every church is its own truth, yet they differ in doctrine?

I have no idea how this question follows from my treatment of 1 Tim 3:15.

Sounds like God is a bit confused.

So apparently, if God's revelation were really clear, there would never be any differences in doctrine. If differences DO occur, it's God's fault.
1) How does lozeerose get there?
2) Since RCC doesn't have unity, this cuts his own throat.

So did lozeerose solve the problem of his own creation, namely "why so many interpretations if there's one God"? Or did he assume that divine revelation and text are actually comprehensible to human beings, thus undercutting one of his main points? Come to think of it, did he write a blogpost, expecting it to be comprehensible to human beings? After all, if there is only one lozeerose, then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of his blogpost? If I were to remind him that his blogpost actually consisted of various methods for eating a grilled dogpoop sandwich, is that a valid interpretation? Who are you, mere unauthoritative, fallible, private individual, to tell me it does not in fact deal with the topic of dogpoop? He's not one of those Sola Scripturists, is he?

Meet and greet with Rhology

James Swan asked me to compile a sort of about-me and compilation of my favorite work, so here goes:

Rhology is the not-particularly-anonymous proprietor of the blog Rhoblogy, and is feeling a little strange as he composes this autobiographical post in 3rd-person.
Raised in a mainline, fairly liberal Methodist church and family in the Midwestern USA, which "faith" did little to prepare him for modernist and skeptical questionings related to science and Darwinian evolution, Rhology became an atheist at the age of 13. Jesus used a deep depression and a sharp sense of meaninglessness à la Ecclesiastes to show him that, no matter what he achieved, he'd lose it all to death at the end. Jesus then intervened and saved him just before his 16th birthday. For years charismatic, he eventually became "de-charismaticised" and a just-plain-Baptist. Only recently did the Lord use John 6:45 to turn Rho into an evil baby-eating Calvinist (a redundant term, to be sure).
During his university studies, Rhology studied in France for a year, and to prepare himself did some initial reading about Romanism, thinking that he would meet many challenges from that worldview while there. Oops - little did he realise that most everyone in France is a functional atheist. First lesson learned about Romanism in the real world.
Not long after, a worldview challenge came into view through longtime close friend David Bryan, who completed his journey from Bapticostal to Eastern Orthodoxy and in the course of numerous conversations, several of them the stereotypical "long talk late into the night", defeated many of Rho's arguments and forced him to do some serious rethinking. In the course of time, Rho consumed a great deal of, for example, James White's debates against Romanist opponents and also read through the Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith series and digested what could be applied to Eastern Orthodoxy, figuring that the truth would prevail. Long email discussions with David B later, Rho realised that the grass was not in reality greener on the Sola Ecclesia side of the hill, and he remained a Sola Scripturist. Honestly, in his internal dissension during this time, as he felt Sola Scriptura wobbling, he knew that if SS were to fall completely, conversion to EOC would be the logical conclusion, and was mentally prepared to go there if that were where the truth lay. Let's just say life would have been quite a bit different!

Not long after, Rhology's first forays into Internet apologetics and polemics on the topic of Romanism and such took place at Steve Ray's Catholic Convert forums. Then known as "Rho", he spent several months as a very active member, learning which arguments were good and sharpening them, and discarding others. (Unfortunately, very near the end of his stay there and a little before the death of John Paul II, their forums were hacked and all public archives were either lost or privatised, so these records are not accessible.) "Rho" also spent significant time on the orthodoxchristianity.net message boards, working on his understanding of EOC doctrine and finding more chinks in EO argumentation.

Rhology and his wife became tentmaker missionaries/ESL teachers in Japan for a year, starting in the summer of 2005, and Rhoblogy was begun as an online journal of that adventure. Slowly, the blog began to become less of a journal and more of what it is today. Since Jesus saved Rhology out of atheism when he was 16 and he (as should be obvious) tends toward the cynical and sarcastic, he gravitates toward rationalistic, concrete, and big-picture topics, which is why a great deal of the material at Rhoblogy deals with atheism, skepticism, Darwinian evolution, and liberalism. When you think about it, it's pretty cool how the Lord has brought such a diverse group together on the Beggars All team.

Rho's personal top 10 in dealing with Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy:
10) On how the challenge "Where's your infallible Canon of Scripture?"is ludicrous since Romanists don't even have a fallible canon of their own infallible teachings, let alone an infallible one
9) Series on the glorious biblical teaching of Jesus' Preservation of the Saints
8) Compendium of resources on Eastern Orthodoxy
7) Irony in Patristics, exploring the question-begging nature of labeling some ancient writers "Church Fathers" and others "not-Church-Fathers"
6) Pro-Catholic and Enjoying It!
5) Because Rho loves the Gospel - Tim Staples keeps the commandments! and Taking sin seriously, or, The Gospel
4) Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17 (dispelling the "33,000 denominations" 'argument')
3) The special pleading of Sola Ecclesia-ists' claims to "unity" (burying the "33,000 denominations" 'argument')
2) Matrix of argumentation regarding how the Roman dogma of the Eucharist is monophysite
1) Formal debate with EO blogger DavidW on Sola Scriptura

Rho's personal top 10 in dealing with other topics on Rhoblogy and as a guest-blogger elsewhere:

10) The wire coat hanger and Darwin
9) Salvaging the Darwinian wreckage
8) A question for Dan Barker
7) Here lies an unwanted late-term fœtus, rest in peace (in which Rhology 'eulogises' George Tiller, the baby killer)
6) Series discussing Hymenæanism (aka Hyper-Preterism)
5) A moral quandary for atheistic morality
4) Empathy as Basis for Morality
3) Empiricism refuted
2) Guest post on Atheism Is Dead - "Evidence" for evolution is actually evidence for Intelligent Design
1) Guest post on Triablogue - On the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Luther: The power of Free Will is Nil

The following is from the webpage Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading of "Free Will":

"...we do everything of necessity and nothing by 'free-will'; for the power of 'free-will' is nil..." [From the essay, 'Bondage of the Will,' 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 188]
Luther Exposing the Myth appears to be the product of an Australian Roman Catholic website. They also appear to be arguing by use of a "shock quote" against Luther's denial of free will and his claim that everything occurs by necessity.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth documents their Luther citation as "From the essay, 'Bondage of the Will,' 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 188." The Bondage of the Will is more than simply an essay, it is one of Luther's most important longer writings. Dillenberger's book is just as the title suggests: it's a basic anthology of Luther's writings. For his excepts from The Bondage of the Will, Dillenberger says he utilized The Bondage of the Will, translated by J.I Packer and A.R. Johnston (London: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1957; Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revel Company, 1957); 104-7, 169-71, 205-212, 313-18. The excerpt cited by Luther, Exposing the Myth is from Luther's review of Erasmus' Preface in the Packer / Johnston translation (p.105). In its original source, the quote can be found in WA 18:636,

Context

There are a few things going on in the context. First, Luther does discuss necessity, second he discusses Erasmus' view of free will. Once these are digested, the obscure Luther quote makes a bit more sense. The quote is actually Luther using the words of Erasmus to prove his very point: the will isn't free and God necessitates all things.

In the previous section titled "Of the importance of knowing that God necessitates all things," Luther chastises Erasmus for avoiding discussing God's foreknowledge and related issues. Luther argues thus:

[I]f you hesitate to believe, or are too proud to acknowledge, that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust and rely on His promises? When He makes promises, you ought to be out of doubt that He knows, and can and will perform, what He promises; otherwise, you will be accounting Him neither true nor faithful, which is unbelief, and the height of irreverence, and a denial of the most high God! 

And how can you be thus sure and certain, unless you know that certainly, infallibly, immutably and necessarily, He knows, wills and will perform what He promises? Not only should we be sure that God wills, and will execute His will, necessarily and immutably; we should glory in the fact, as Paul does in Rom. 3 [:4]—let God be true, but every man a liar', and again, `Not that the word of God has failed' [Rom. 9:6], and in another place, 'The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his' [II Tim. 2:19]. In Tit. 1 [:2] he says: `Which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began'. And Heb. 11 [ :6] says: `He that cometh, must believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that hope in him'. If, then, we are taught and believe that we ought to be ignorant of the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of events, Christian faith is utterly destroyed, and the promises of God and the whole gospel fall to the ground completely; for the Christian's chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded. [Packer, Johnston, p. 83-84; Dillenberger, pp. 184-185].

A bit later, Luther then goes after Erasmus over his definition of free will. Luther quotes Erasmus describing free will as ineffective apart from the grace of God. Luther then corners Erasmus by turning his words against him: if free will is ineffective without grace, then it is enslaved to evil:

You describe the power of `free-will' as small, and wholly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Agreed? Now then, I ask you: if God's grace is wanting, if it is taken away from that small power, what can it do? It is ineffective, you say, and can do nothing good. So it will not do what God or His grace wills. Why? Because we have now taken God's grace away from it, and what the grace of God does not do is not good. Hence it follows that `free-will' without God's grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good. This being so, I give you full permission to enlarge the power of `free-will' as much as you like; make it angelic, make it divine, if you can!—but when once you add this doleful postscript, that it is ineffective apart from God's grace, straightway you rob it of all its power. What is ineffective power but (in plain language) no power? So to say that `free-will' exists and has power, albeit ineffective power, is, in the Sophists' phrase, a contradiction in terms. It is like saying "free-will" is something which is not free'—as if you said that fire is cold and earth hot. Fire certainly has power to heat; but if hell-fire (even) was cold and chilling instead of burning and scorching, I would not call it `fire', let alone• 'hot' (unless you meant to refer to an imaginary fire, or a painted one). Note, however, that if we meant by `the power of free-will' the power which makes human beings fit subjects to be caught up by the Spirit and touched by God's grace, as creatures made for eternal life or eternal death, we should have a proper definition. And I certainly acknowledge the existence of this power, this fitness, or 'dispositional quality' and `passive aptitude' (as the Sophists call it), which, as everyone knows, is not given to plants or animals. As the proverb says, God did not make heaven for geese! [Packer, Johnston, p. 104-105; Dillenberger, pp. 187-188].

Then comes the obscure quote:

It is a settled truth, then, even on the basis of your own testimony, that we do everything of necessity, and nothing by `free-will'; for the power of `free-will' is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace. (Unless you intend `efficacy' to be taken in a new sense, as implying completion, and are suggesting that `free-will' can actually will and begin a thing, though it cannot complete it. This I do not believe; I shall say more on the point later.) It follows, therefore, that `free-will' is obviously a term applicable only to the Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) `whatever he wills in heaven and earth' [Ps. 135:6]. If `free-will' is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be—and no blasphemy could exceed that! So it befits theologians to refrain from using the term when they want to speak of human ability, and to leave it to be applied to God only. They would do well also to take the term out of men's mouths and speech, and to claim it for their God, as if it were His own holy and awful Name. If they must at all hazards assign some power to men, let them teach that it must be denoted by some other term than `free-will'; especially since we know from our own observation that the mass of men are sadly deceived and misled by this phrase. The meaning which it conveys to their minds is far removed from anything that theologians believe and discuss. The term `free-will' is too grandiose and comprehensive and fulsome. People think it means what the natural force of the phrase would require, namely, a power of freely turning in any direction, yielding to none and subject to none. If they knew that this was not so, and that the term signifies only a tiny spark of power, and that utterly ineffective in itself, since it is the devil's prisoner and slave, it would be a wonder if they did not stone us as mockers and deceivers, who say one thing and mean another —indeed, who have not yet decided what we do mean! For, as the wise man says, 'he who speaks sophistically is hateful' [? Pr. 6:17], especially if he does so in matters of religion, where eternal salvation is at stake. [Packer, Johnston, p. 105-106; Dillenberger, 188].

Alternate translation:

It is settled, then, even on your own testimony, that we do everything by necessity, and nothing by free choice, since the power of free choice is nothing and neither does nor can do good in the absence of grace—unless you wish to give “efficacy” a new meaning and understand it as “perfection,” as if free choice might very well make a start and will something, though it could not carry it through. But that I do not believe, and will say more about it later. It follows now that free choice is plainly a divine term, and can be properly applied to none but the Divine Majesty alone; for he alone can do and does (as the psalmist says [Ps. 115:3]) whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth. If this is attributed to men, it is no more rightly attributed than if divinity itself also were attributed to them, which would be the greatest possible sacrilege. Theologians therefore ought to have avoided this term when they wished to speak of human ability, leaving it to be applied to God alone. They should, moreover, have removed it from the lips and language of men, treating it as a kind of sacred and venerable name for their God. And if they attributed any power at all to men, they should teach that it must be called by another name than free choice, especially as we know and clearly perceive that the common people are miserably deceived and led astray by that term, since they hear and understand it in a very different sense from that which the theologians mean and discuss.

For the expression “free choice” is too imposing, too wide and full, and the people think it signifies—as the force and nature of the term requires—a power that can turn itself freely in either direction, without being under anyone’s influence or control. If they knew that it was not so, but that hardly the tiniest spark of power was meant by this term, and a spark completely ineffectual by itself as a captive and slave of the devil, it would be surprising if they did not stone us as mockers and deceivers who say one thing and mean something quite different, or rather who have not yet decided or agreed on what we do mean. For he who speaks sophistically is hateful, as the Wise Man says [Prov. 6:17], particularly if he does this in matters of piety, where eternal salvation is at stake [LW 33:68-69].

Conclusion
When Luther says "we do everything of necessity, and nothing by `free-will'; for the power of `free-will' is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace," he's turning the position of Erasmus against itself. Luther argues throughout for the need of grace to free the enslaved will. In a previous blog post  we saw that even a Roman Catholic scholar admits Erasmus minimized the need for grace and the enslavement of mankind to sin.

True, Luther's using the words of Erasmus to argue for his own position, so in this sense, Luther Exposing the Myth has the sentiment of the quote correct. On the other hand, Luther Exposing the Myth completely ignores Luther's argumentation about necessity and the will. Rather, they set up a Pelagian paradigm which is quite reminiscent of that of Erasmus. Both Luther Exposing the Myth and Erasmus either minimize or ignore grace. What Roman Catholic scholar Harry McSorley points out about Erasmus could very well be said about Luther Exposing the Myth:

Erasmus defines free will in terms of salvation--without mentioning grace. Erasmus gives no hint in his definition that man the sinner is enslaved to sin until he is liberated by grace. The definition is surely one of the "extraordinary blunders" which, according to P. Hughes, characterize De libero arbitrio [Jared Wicks. ed., Catholic Scholars Dialogue With Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), p. 112].

With this particular Luther quote, the outrage on behalf of Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to be that Luther denies free will and says everything occurs by necessity. Why is this an outrage? Perhaps it's because this same website hosts The Catechism Simply Explained By Canon Cafferata which states:

74. What will Christ say to the wicked?

Christ will say to the wicked, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

These words, quoted from our Lord's description of the Last Judgement (Matt.25:41), have a terrifying significance. They are set in contrast to the words which will be quoted in the next question. To the good Christ will say, “Come”. To the wicked He will say, “Depart”. And, as the text shows, the welcome and the rejection are equally irrevocable. The bad will go into everlasting punishment; the just into life everlasting (Matt.25:46). Our Lord tells us that God created hell for the devil and the rebellious angels, not for man. But man has free will and by his conscience he knows the moral law imposed on him by God. If he dies in deliberate rebellion against the law, he inevitably incurs the penalty of that rebellion; he condemns himself to hell. Faced with this awful fact of eternal punishment, let us remember that no man will be subjected to it who does not deserve it. God is infinitely just; by His very nature, therefore, He cannot punish anyone beyond his deserts. If we lead a good life we have no cause to fear the loss of our immortal souls. [source]

The next section goes on to say, "We must work our way to heaven; and the only way of getting there is the way laid down by our Lord, not the way we think is right or we or other men have invented." Once again, these defenders of Rome  have a good dose of Pelagianism in their veins. When they went after Luther over the law of God they quoted Matthew 19:17 without a context, making Christ appears to be teaching that eternal life is gained by works.


If the author of Luther Exposing the Myth takes such theology seriously, one can understand why Luther's words come across as shocking. If free will is nil, and everything happens by necessity, then it appears God is not infinitely just as the above catechism states. Rather, they would rather have salvation based on works. I can't help but wonder how Roman Catholic these defenders of Rome are. I haven't come across such blatant Pelagiansim on other Roman Catholic websites. It's usually far more subtle.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

The Phony Decree of Damasus or Gelasius

A Catholic writer named Michael Gormley, who may have showed up here at Beggars All, has peppered my other blogs with some comments. Most recently he said this:

One example from ancient times of the Catholic Church officially deciding which books belong in the Bible, I'll quote the second part of the DECREE of Pope Damasus I (r. 366-384). The document was a decree of the Council of Rome which met under Damasus' presidency in AD 382.

The text of the DECREE as re the Scriptures was copied from page 406 of Volume 1 of THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS, edited/translated by William A. Jurgens (Collegevlle, The Liturgical Press: 1970).

"[2] It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave [Joshua], one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles; one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaias, one book; Jeremias [Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah], one book, along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

"Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament."

Alert readers should note how this list includes as fully canonical the Deuterocanonical books which the founders of Protestantism erroneously purged from their editions of the Bible after 1517.

Genuinely alert readers should note that Jurgens is somewhat famous for passing along forged and fake documents like this one as if they were real. The document he cited, as from "Pope Damasus," is also known as the Decree of Gelasius, but it's not written by him, either, but was probably composed by an anonymous source in the sixth century.

In truth, "the Roman Catholic Faith" was shaped by very many incidents such as this, in which a false or forged document is believed as genuine. I've already written about "Pseudo-Dionysius," a neoplatonist writer who purported to be the convert of Paul from Acts 17. Nevertheless, the great Thomas Aquinas thought that he, and other fake sources, was genuine, and Aquinas has a somewhat foundational place in Roman Catholic theology and doctrine today. Much of what is now Marian dogma also had its roots in forged or spurious documents.

So we have the spectacle of Roman Catholic apologists running around telling us how difficult God's own Scriptures are, in the name of having a "living Authority" that passes along spurious documents as foundational for its faith. It truly is a sad situation.

Whitaker's Seventh Argument

Whitaker's seventh argument in defense of Sola Scriptura needs no additional commentary:

Our seventh argument is taken from 1 Thess. ii. 13, where Paul addresses the Thessalonians thus: "We give thanks to God always, because that, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth), the word of God [Greek text omitted] which also worketh effectually in you that believe." From this place I argue thus: If the Thessalonians, when they only heard Paul, received the doctrine of scripture as divine, and so embraced it, then, without the judgment of the church, the scripture ought to have a divine authority with us. But the former is true; for the Thessalonians had then heard of no prophecy or testimony of any church, but had only received the word from the lips of Paul: therefore also the latter. Ambrose writes thus upon that place: "They received the word with such devotion as to prove that they understood it to be the word of God." But whence could they understand it to be such? Certainly from the doctrine itself, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit; not from the authority of any church, or of the apostle himself. For what church could persuade the Thessalonians by the weight of its testimony to receive Paul, or assent to his discourses as divine? The apostle himself was unknown to them, and had nowhere any authority but on account of that doctrine, the minister and herald of which he was. Therefore, the doctrine itself gained for him all his credit and authority...So Acts xvii. 11, the Bereans, when they heard Paul, examined his teaching not by the judgment of the church, but by the standard of the scripture itself. It appears, therefore, that scripture of itself, without the testimony and authority of the church, hath a divine, canonical and authentic authority even in respect of us.

Some nuance on the use of images

Paul Manata put up a post at Triablogue, using the following illustration with the title, "Cornelius Van Til Violates the Second Commandment."

But I think he is just asking for some nuance.

* * *

I think Van Til is on safe ground.

Luther: Man Has No Free Will

The following is from the webpage Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading of "Free Will":

Christ taught: “Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”[“Matthew 7:21, Cf. Matt 7:24, Matt 26:24]. Luther teaches: "...with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no 'free-will', but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan" [From the essay, 'Bondage of the Will,' 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190].

Luther Exposing the Myth is the product of  a Roman Catholic apologetics website. The author attempts to show Luther's view of the will is contradicted by Matthew 7:21 (and also Matthew 7:24, but I have no idea why Matthew 26:24 is cited).

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth documents their Luther citation as "From the essay, 'Bondage of the Will,' 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190." The Bondage of the Will is more than simply an essay, it is one of Luther's most important longer writings. Dillenberger's book is just as the title suggests: it's a basic anthology of Luther's writings. For his excepts from The Bondage of the Will, Dillenberger says he utilized The Bondage of the Will, translated by J.I Packer and A.R. Johnston (London: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1957; Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revel Company, 1957); 104-7, 169-71, 205-212, 313-18. The excerpt cited by Luther, Exposing the Myth is from Luther's review of Erasmus' Preface (II.ix) in the Packer / Johnston translation (p.107). In its original source, the quote can be found in WA 18:638,

Context
In context, Luther is hammering away at the shoddy way Erasmus explained and used the term "free will."

If we do not want to drop this term [free will] altogether—which would really be the safest and most Christian thing' to do—we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with `free-will' in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own `free-will'—though that very `free-will' is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no `freewill', but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan. [Packer, Johnston, p.107 (Dillenberger, 190].

Alternate translation:

Who would not think it ridiculous, or rather very objectionable, if some untimely innovator in the use of words attempted to introduce, against all common usage, such a manner of speaking as to call a beggar rich, not because he possessed any riches, but because some king might perhaps give him his, especially if this were done in seeming seriousness and not in a figure of speech, such as antiphrasis or irony. In this way, one who was mortally ill could be said to be perfectly well because some other might give him his own health, and a thoroughly illiterate fellow could be called very learned because someone else might perhaps give him learning. That is just how it sounds here: Man has free choice—if, of course, God would hand over his own to him! By this misuse of language, anyone might boast of anything, as for instance, that man is lord of heaven and earth—if God would grant it to him. But that is not the way for theologians to talk, but for stage players and public informers. Our words ought to be precise, pure, and sober, and as Paul says, sound and beyond censure [Titus 2:8].

But if we are unwilling to let this term go altogether—though that would be the safest and most God-fearing thing to do—let us at least teach men to use it honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan (LW 33:69-70).

Conclusion
Luther is stating that in regard to the way people treat each other, they are in some way "free," in the sense that they act according to their nature. In regard to man's relationship to God, it is quite different: one is either enslaved to God or Satan. Rather than being contradicted by Scripture, Luther is quite in harmony with John 8 and Ephesians 2.

Luther, Exposing the Myth cited Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." They also cited Matthew 7:24: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock." The underlying assumption put forth by Luther Exposing the Myth appears to be that each person has a free will, and if they use that free will correctly by doing "the will of the Father" will enter Heaven.

These passages in their biblical context say something much different, Jesus is discussing the danger of false prophets, not whether the will is free or enslaved. False prophets are those who bear bad fruit. Jesus warns these prophets may plead they are his followers. He states,

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

The text has nothing to say about what the abilities of mankind are. Matthew 7:24 describes those who hears the words of Jesus and puts them into practice. It says nothing about who is able to put those words into practice.

For a description the plight of humankind, one needs to go to that section of the Bible in which this topic is addressed, like Romans 3:9-18 or Ephesians 2:1-10. There we find that mankind is enslaved to sin. Paul says humanity is dead in trespasses and sin. John describes mankind as enslaved to sin (John 8:34-36), and notes that if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Those who have been set free from sin are those who are able to hear the words of Jesus AND put them into practice.

As Roman Catholic scholar Harry McSorley points out, Luther was provoked by the inadequate way Erasmus defined the human will:

Erasmus shows little appreciation of the genuine meaning of Luther's thesis of the unfree will, namely, that the will of fallen man apart from grace is totally incapable of doing anything for salvation, totally unfree to do anything that is good in God's sight [Jared Wicks. ed., Catholic Scholars Dialogue With Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), p. 111].

Erasmus defines free will in terms of salvation--without mentioning grace. Erasmus gives no hint in his definition that man the sinner is enslaved to sin until he is liberated by grace. The definition is surely one of the "extraordinary blunders" which, according to P. Hughes, characterize De libero arbitrio [Jared Wicks. ed., Catholic Scholars Dialogue With Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), p. 112].

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.